Gopher Media LLC. v. Spain
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Karen S. Crawford (author)
Analysis
The court considered plaintiff Gopher Media's ex parte motion for reconsideration of an earlier order requiring the forensic examination of its CEO's electronic devices. The court denied the motion and ordered the plaintiff to produce the devices for examination within five business days.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of Plaintiff's Ex Parte Motion for Reconsideration and/or Clarification“Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion for Reconsideration [Doc. No. 42] is DENIED.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard that discovery orders are reviewed for abuse of discretion. The order recites that the CEO is knowledgeable about the facts and that defendants have raised affirmative defenses regarding his actions, providing a sufficient basis for the court to determine that forensic examination was necessary for a fair resolution. The plaintiff failed to provide new reasons to depart from the prior determination. |
Order to produce electronic devices for forensic examination“Plaintiff shall produce any cell phones, laptops, tablets, and memory storage devices in use by Gopher Media’s CEO, Ajay Thakore, from January 1, 2018 to the present for forensic examination in accordance with the parties’ Forensic Examination Protocol within 5 business days of the date of this Order.” | agree with court This order enforces the prior ESI Order which was found to be within the court's discretion. The scope (CEO's devices, specific date range) and timeline (5 business days) are specific and consistent with the underlying dispute regarding the CEO's actions. |
The order itself: sound — The order is concise but legally sufficient. It correctly identifies the standard of review (broad discretion) and applies it to the specific facts (CEO's knowledge and affirmative defenses). It cites appropriate Ninth Circuit authority. It does not skip any critical arguments because the motion was for reconsideration, which requires a showing of clear error or new evidence, neither of which was provided by the plaintiff.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GOPHER MEDIA, LLC (formerly known Case No.: 3:19-cv-02280-CAB-KSC as Local Clicks) dba Doctor Multimedia, a 12 Nevada Limited Liability Corporation, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 13 EX PARTE MOTION FOR Plaintiff, RECONSIDERATION [Doc. No. 42] 14 v. 15 PHILLIP SPAIN, an individual; 16 STEPHEN MARINKOVICH, an individual, 17 Defendants. 18 19 20 21 Before the Court is plaintiff Gopher Media LLC’s (“plaintiff” or “Gopher Media”) 22 ex parte Motion for Reconsideration and/or Clarification of the Court’s August 27, 2020 23 Order (the “Motion” or “Mot.”). Doc. No. 42. Defendants oppose the Motion (the 24 “Opposition” or “Opp.”) Doc. No. 44. For the reasons set forth below, the Court 25 DENIES the Motion. 26 On August 27, 2020, the Court issued an order resolving several disputes regarding 27 the production of ESI in this Action (the “ESI Order”). Doc. No. 36. In the Motion, 28 plaintiff objects to the provision in the ESI Order requiring Gopher Media’s CEO, Ajay 1 || Thakore, to produce his electronic devices for forensic examination (see Doc. No. 36 at 2 || 8) and requests that the Court “delete” this portion of the ESI Order. Doc. No. 42 at 2. 3 || The Court declines to do so. 4 As noted, Mr. Thakore is the CEO of Gopher Media. He is clearly knowledgeable 5 || about the facts underlying plaintiff's allegations. As the Court referenced in its ESI 6 || Order, defendants have asserted various affirmative defenses relating to Mr. Thakore’s 7 || actions on behalf of Gopher Media. Doc. No. 36 at 2, 7-8. The Court therefore 8 determined in the exercise of its discretion that a forensic examination of Mr. Thakore’s 9 ||electronic devices was necessary to ensure a fair resolution of the issues. See, e.g., 10 || Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002) (recognizing the Court’s “broad 11 |/discretion” to “permit or deny discovery”); Amarel v. Connell, 102 F.3d 1494, 1515 (9th 12 || Cir. 1996) (“[A] district court is vested with ‘broad discretion to make discovery ... 13 rulings conducive to the conduct of a fair and orderly trial.’”’) (citation omitted). 14 || Plaintiffs Motion does not provide any reason to depart from that determination. 15 || Accordingly, plaintiff's Motion is DENIED. 16 ORDER 17 || For the reasons set forth above, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows: 18 1. Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion for Reconsideration [Doc. No. 42] is DENIED. 19 2. Plaintiff shall produce any cell phones, laptops, tablets, and memory storage 20 devices in use by Gopher Media’s CEO, Ajay Thakore, from January 1, 2018 to 21 the present for forensic examination in accordance with the parties’ Forensic 22 Examination Protocol within 5 business days of the date of this Order. 23 || IT ISSO ORDERED. 24 ||Dated: September 25, 2020 dj i. ™) 25 WU LA _———_ 6 Hori. Karen S. Crawford United States Magistrate Judge 27 28